ArticleScientific reports2022
Perceptual decision-making in autism as assessed by "spot the difference" visual cognition tasks.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- ShopAutiPlan: Validating a Serious Game for Assessing Executive Planning in Autism.Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research · 2026Article
- Serious Game Aimed at Assessing Executive Planning Skills in Children With Autism: Cross-Sectional Design and Formative Evaluation of ShopAutiPlan.JMIR serious games · 2026Article
- The "Tetris effect": autistic and non-autistic people share an implicit drive for perceptual cohesion.Molecular autism · 2025Article
- Linking Subclinical Autistic Traits and Perceptual Category Learning.The European journal of neuroscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Discriminating between similar figures proves to be a remarkably demanding task due to the limited capacity of our visual cognitive processes. Here we examine how perceptual inference and decision-making are modulated by differences arising from neurodiversity. A large sample of autistic (n = 140) and typical (n = 147) participants completed two forced choice similarity judgement tasks online. Each task consisted of "match" (identical figures) and "mismatch" (subtle differences between figures) conditions. Signal detection theory analyses indicated a response bias by the autism group during conditions of uncertainty. More specifically, autistic participants were more likely to choose the "mismatch" option, thus leading to more hits on the "mismatch" condition, but also more false alarms on the "match" condition. These results suggest differences in response strategies during perceptual decision-making in autism.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.